In re the Supreme Court decision

[Beachcomber]

To grant terrorists held at Guantanamo "rights" they do not deserve:

[gae]

WELL PUT!!!

This is an outrage! [img]mad.gif[/img] [img]mad.gif[/img] [img]mad.gif[/img] [img]mad.gif[/img]

[Beachcomber]

[Beachcomber]

[Beachcomber]

[img]http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTbx.KtlJI7pkAjCmjzbkF/SIG=11hmmpen2/EXP=1213466634/**http%3A//www.rawa.org/herat.jpg[/img]

[YoSam]

It seems to me we have 5 Supreme Court judges that could have used a little R&R at Gitmo before they made this bone-headed decision.
Just a little one-on-one face time w/ the guys they just granted habeous corpus to.
We might have seen a different outcome, assuming that they were still upright when the "illegal combatants" were through w/ them.

[LanDroid]

With a decision notably brief for the mountain of argument leading up to it, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.

http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What's the earth-shattering difference between the above previous opinion by a different supreme court and the current decision?

[Beachcomber]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

[LanDroid]

Except that everyone acts like this is something new, I don't get it.

[YoSam]

[hem]Roid-

It is apparent that you support insanity.

The Geneva Convention applies to [read this slowly] U-N-I-F-O-R-M-E-D S-O-L-D-I-E-R-S.
The Supreme Court just applied U.S. Constitutional rights to non-American-civilians who WANT TO KILL AMERICANS!!!!!!

Last time I checked you might be an American.
But then again, maybe you want to meet some of the "illegal combatants" face to face so they can continue their mission.


I suggest that you volunteer.

<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ June 18, 2008 09:31 AM: Message edited by: YoSam ]</font>